Firefly did absolutely nothing for me. It's definitely not my kind of show. I have very little tolerance for rebels and losers, and that's what FF is all about. It was always trumpeted as an anti-Trek show, and, well, I *like* Trek. I sympathize with the larger group, with the legitimate authority. Which in this show meant the Alliance - obviously meant to be the big bad guys, the "evil empire" , but I never saw them that way (and still don't).

If this had been a Trekverse show, it'd be about the Maquis, and you all know how I felt about *them*. It just reinforces my belief that a lot of revolutions exist to feed the ego...

Also, I don't like shows that are filled with smartasses (which is what Joss Whedon loves to write). In fact there were very few characters on the show I would not have immediately shot in the face if I'd met them IRL. I don't think I've ever seen a more disagreeable lot. I almost wish there'd been an episode where they all get their asses thrown in prison by the Alliance.

Now, I admit, I thought the general 'look and feel' of the series was very interesting. I was fascinated by the concept of a "western in space" taken literally. But I did not like these people, I could not root for them, and so that must mean I failed.

firefly has always been remarkably cheap on DVD. I got it as a blind buy, watched it in a weekend and and periodically rewatch it. The commentaries are interesting and entertaining as well. If you like, as other have said, the film Serenity brings it to a degree or resolution.

the Alliance - obviously meant to be the big bad guys, the "evil empire"

Click to expand...

Yeah, you really did miss the point.

Click to expand...

I'm sure I did, but please explain?

Click to expand...

The Alliance isn't evil. Well, maybe a few of the top brass, but not the majority of it. It's simply over-extended. There's no way it can be a just and fair system when policy decisions are made by those sectors away from the actual problems.

And on top of that, the fact that it became so large via forceful expansion (eg, war) means that it's now a matter of image---they can't admit they screwed up and release worlds to local control again. So they just keep right on interfering with things running well and ignoring things running badly, and the whole system begins a slow slide towards chaos.

Mal and his bunch are the best possible response to this sort of situation---they get things where they need to go, rules and regs be damned. They may not operate within the law, but they have their own code, and that puts them above the pirates and slavers at least.

DC is doing a mediocre job at best "solving" problems halfway around the world that it has little business interfering with in the first place. I'd really hate to think how well they'd do policing Alpha Centauri as well.

It's a problem of identity. When a beign government operates domestically, it can do a fairly good job because the people are (fairly) happy with it. But when it tries to extend itself elsewhere, no matter how good the intentions, it is met with resentment at best, hostility at worst---simply because it's "them" rather than "us". That is the fundamental problem with imperialist states like the Alliance.

Which is not to say that the problems are entirely the fault of the Independents for resisting occupation. While things would no doubt have gone smoother if they had given in gracefully, there's still the problem of bureaucracy getting in the way of actually making things better. And when lines of control extend to interplanetary distances....there's more bureaucracy at work than a civilization confined to one planet can imagine, I expect.

The fundamental premise of the show is that "big government" reaches a tipping point after which it simply doesn't work. It's possible that isn't true, but it's a reasonable enough premise to start from that I have no problem with it.

The fundamental premise of the show is that "big government" reaches a tipping point after which it simply doesn't work. It's possible that isn't true, but it's a reasonable enough premise to start from that I have no problem with it.

Click to expand...

Wow Lindley, I was gonna answer him my own self, but I could NOT have put it better than you did!!! You're my gorram hero.

The Federation clearly works, so I don't see why the Alliance couldn't.

Click to expand...

The reason might be...uh...fiction...?

Click to expand...

I know the difference.

The reason the Alliance *doesn't* work is because it is written that way. It's written that it should always fail. But it doesn't *have* to be that way. If the Alliance is as ambiguous as you people keep saying, then it *could* work. There could be times when it does good things. But of course the almighty Joss would never let us see that, would he?

It's certainly a lot more controlling than the Federation. The fact of fighting a war of expansion should prove that. Calling it "evil" is still too narratively over-the-top to be correct, however. The show didn't operate in such terms.

As Pike described it in the new movie, the Federation seems to have started out more like the UN than an actual government.

Firefly says, "What if the Alliance doesn't work."

Click to expand...

And refuses to consider that it ever could. At least there are instances in Trek where the Federation makes mistakes.

Click to expand...

It's hardly so one-sided. There are plenty of characters who support the Alliance. Inara is one. However, asking "why does the show ask this what-if instead of that one" hardly seems productive. If it were a different what-if, it would be a different story.

There could be times when it does good things.

Click to expand...

Of course. And I'm sure we would have seen some of them if the series had continued. What made Firefly compelling was that things weren't black-and-white----there were plenty of shades of grey to go around.